BEG, J. - (1.) THIS is a judgment debtors appeal by Certificate of fitness of the case for appeal to this Court granted by the High Court of Allahabad, arising out of an application filed under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code.
(2.) THE Respondent decree-holders had obtained a decree for about Rs. 76,000/- against the appellants in a mortgage suit. In execution of that decree sales of three items of property, shown as houses belonging to the judgment debtors took place on 5-5-1955 and 7-5-1955. THE items were described as follows in the sale proclamation : JUDGEMENT_629_2_1973Html1.htm The main objection of the judgment debtors appellants to this proclamation is that the execution Court had, in giving the valuation of the properties in the proclamation, practically accepted the statements made an behalf of the decree-holders, and, without assigning any reason, failed to mention the values put by the judgment-debtors on these properties. The respective valuations of the properties by the two sides were: JUDGEMENT_629_2_1973Html2.htm On 18-5-1948,long before the proclamation of sale was drawn up on 31-3-1955, the judgment debtors had put in an objection to the execution Court's order of 14-2-1948 relating to the framing of the sale proclamation. particularly with regard to the two bungalows situated in the heart of the Civil Lines, the best residential area of Allahabad. They had stated that the area or land in the compound in which the two bungalows were situated was three acres and that the whole property was not worth less than Rupees one lac. They had objected to the sale of the two bungalows in one lot. They had also asserted that the latest municipal assessment of 1944 had displaced the municipal assessment of l934 relied upon by the decree-holder. According to the judgment-debtors, the two bungalows Nos. 8 and 10 on Tej Bahadur Sapru Road were assessed at annual rents of Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 1200/- per year. In an affidavit of 19-4-1947 they had asserted that a bungalow situated nearby, assessed at an annual rent of Rs. 1500/-, was sold for Rs. 50,000/- on 23-4-45 when prices were lower. On 18-5-1948, the judgment-debtors had also prayed for the issue of commission, at their expense, presumably to view the property and give a report on relevant facts before actually framing a sale proclamation in accordance with the court's order of 14-2-1948 directing insertion of the value made by it.
(3.) ON 5-5-1955, the Court Amin had himself put up house No, 5 situated in Colonelgunj, Allahabad separately for sale and sold it for Rs. 10,500/-. ON the same date, the Amin sold house No. 5-A in Colonelgunj for Rs. 8500/- and also house No. 5-B separately for Rs. 7,000/-. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 26,000/- was realised from the sale of the three houses in one compound at Colonelgunj described as one item of property in the sale proclamation. They had been valued at Rs. 10,000/- by the decree-holder and Rs. 60,000/- by the judgment-debtor. The court had valued the whole property at Rs. 10,350/-, and thus practically assented to the decree-holder's valuation and rejected the judgment-debtor's without assigning any reason beyond expressing the opinion that it was exaggerated. The property in Katra was sold for Rupees 3,750/- on 5-5-1955. After the sale, the judgment debtors applied to set aside the sales on the ground of fraud and material irregularity in conducting them and complained of substantial injury. They relied on uncontroverted assertions made in their affidavit of 19-4-1947 as well as on the assertions made in an application dated 18-5-1948 where it was stated: "That the judgment-debtor is informed that the whole game of the decree-holder is to undervalue the property to get the auction for a song and purchase the property himself. This under-hand game may be stopped and justice be done." ;